We want to help keep people safe both online and offline, so we don't allow the promotion of some products or services that cause damage, harm, or injury.

Below are some examples of products and services that we consider to be dangerous, which you should avoid in your ads.

Tobacco

Products designed to simulate tobacco smoking

• Examples: Herbal cigarettes, electronic cigarettes, or e-cigarettes

Would you be so kind to explain, why this rule does not apply to everyone. I did not find any rules exemption.

I am engaged in selling e-cigarettes, and I made several attempts to advertise these products, but it was not approved.

At the same time, the advertisement of e-cigarette devices from a well-known store http://rozetka.com.ua/ is very common in the web. What is the reason that you allow this violation of rules? And approve such a promotion?

Looking forward to your response. Please, implement the uniform rules: either it is prohibited for everyone, or it is allowed to everyone to promote e-cigarettes.

Re: An ad violates other AdWords policies (Products designed to simulate tobacco smoking)

Due to the language (i.e. Russian) I can't tell how the device is promoted: whether it is promoted as an e-cigarette device or as an aromatic device.

It could be that because of the language the it was not caught by the ad-botAnyway; the Policy staff checking the ads is overloaded with complaints. Once a complaint is submitted, it could take a while (even weeks) before investigated.

Note: dual purpose devices are not always prohibited: depending on the intent of use.

Re: An ad violates other AdWords policies (Products designed to simulate tobacco smoking)

My Russian is pretty poor, however, the website seems to say it is an atomizer and wiktionary says an atomizer is an instrument for reducing a liquid to spray or vapor for disinfecting, cooling, medical use or perfume spraying. Probably multi-purpose.

I understand that that is your opinion. However, the site seems to claim it is only a starter kit vaporizer that can be multi-purpose as discussed above. I suspect they may be flying under the radar by not mentioning tobacco. Though, In contradiction to what I think we had this report from New York earlier current year.

*** Fixing Site Suspended ***https://www.en.advertisercommunity.com/t5/Ad-Approval-Policy/Fixing-Site-Suspended/td-p/502502"Lets be real here . Google is considering vapor products tobacco and it is NOT at all tobacco. the entire state of New York may be the only state in our country that has a judge smart enough to recognize this ! Vapor products are made from food grade products and lab created nicotine usually it does not even come from tobacco it can come from a tomato having nothing to do with tobacco ... etc. etc."

Dispute could of course go on whether or not lab created nicotine is banned or not. For me, however, the decisive declaration by Google is this:

Note that the policy does not require that the product be associated with tobacco or nicotine. It says: It is "designed to simulate tobacco smoking".

Incoming reports to the forum do not seem consistent. Perhaps multi-purpose may be an excuse as @MosheTLV said. And perhaps different reps have different approaches.

For Andrei, however, I think the right attitude is to stay away from it and file a complaint on the rozetka website to learn more. Why the playing field is not 100% even might remain a mystery of course. However, violations of a policy committed by any one else should not encourage others to follow suite. (The same is applicable in a criminal courtroom.)

Google does clearly not have enough resources (money) to attend their overload of reports coming in. I guess it is not a priority. Which is strange as if there is an overload you would assume they would make an effort to deal with the backlog.

I have clients losing money because of competitor ads that are in clear violation. It is actual not acceptable for legit advertiser to be left in the dark for several weeks if other advertisers are clearly violating the systems. I see and report dailly sites that cloak and uses other redirect methods to trick the system. Also ads that have misleading ad texts and other violations.

But as WE the public is policing the ads on the behalf of Google, Goole does not need to follow through and give us any feedback. It is a game of guesses.

Re: An ad violates other AdWords policies (Products designed to simulate tobacco smoking)

I partly agree with Stanley in that the work overload on the Policy Team is really huge and that even though I am sure they do their best, some changes might be necessary in the future. However, with respect, I would not like to agree with the statement that it is not a priority. It is in fact a priority, I'd say one of the top ones. However, everything takes time. Just remember, Rome wasn't built in a day.